Keir Starmer

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

Shithouse. 

 

You've made a fool of yourself and you're looking for a way to back out.

Are you still fucking crying? What do I have to back away from? I stand by everything I’ve said. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Are you still fucking crying? What do I have to back away from? I stand by everything I’ve said. 

You'll stand by...

"Corbyn"

"beard"

"Prick"

"crying"

 

You are the literary hero 2020 deserves.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Yes, especially the prick comment. I wish I’d called you a double-spacing prick, but it is what it is. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It is, indeed.

 

I tried to have a sensible conversation, but you chose to waste time on this shit insťead. Ah, well.

[Bjornebye]

Labour should fuck Corbyn off completely. Not because he isn’t a better man than all of them but because he is an easy target for slander when the tories need to deflect. He could be put to much better use elsewhere. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Labour should fuck Corbyn off completely. Not because he isn’t a better man than all of them but because he is an easy target for slander when the tories need to deflect. He could be put to much better use elsewhere. 

That's pretty much up to the CLP and the electorate of Islington. 

 

Personally, I'd rather trust CLPs to choose candidates based on who they think will be good MPs than let Party HQ decide on the basis of what the Tories might think. 

[Bjornebye]

4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

That's pretty much up to the CLP and the electorate of Islington. 

 

Personally, I'd rather trust CLPs to choose candidates based on who they think will be good MPs than let Party HQ decide on the basis of what the Tories might think. 

I think it’s counter-productive to keep him around the party. As much as I love the man it’s just a distraction we could do with out especially when the tories are fucking things up. We need this Tory party gone and if that means Corbyn is sacrificed then so be it. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

17 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It is, indeed.

 

I tried to have a sensible conversation, but you chose to waste time on this shit insťead. Ah, well.

You didn't, Angry. You didn't try to have a sensible conversation; you tried to use a school-yard tactic - again - of replying to a comment with an attempt at pivoting and reframing what had been said. The time I tried to engage sensibly you said you weren't going to read it. Not sure what the fuck you want from me, but if you're going to try to use such bland, transparent, junior-debate-club nonsense that insults my intelligence, then I'm just too fuckin' lazy to refute that sort of poorly thought-out nonsense. Seriously, the days when I write multiple thousand word essays as a response to a post, just so I can win a debate on the fucking internet, are long gone. It's just not worth it; I get nothing from it.

 

In this case, you start out with a clear double standard and you've now veered into 'you're an idiot' levels of debating. Seriously, you've been banging on in defence of Corbyn for years (you used to get pissed off when people called him scruffy, much less a bad leader) and you're pissed off that I've had a pop at his leadership and, I suspect more annoyingly, at his acolytes. It's fucking transparent. No matter what you've insinuated in your last few posts, I'm not an idiot; it's obvious you're on the defensive about it and it's colouring your view. The double standard of having previously lambasted Paul for having a pop at Corbyn, saying he was immature for expecting too much within 9 months of Corbyn's leadership, then here you are at Starmer's throat within a few months. I'd have to blind not to notice your real motivations.

 

The truth is that we don't know where Starmer will take the party yet. We know just a few facts: that he has, in his first few months, become the most popular leader of the Labour Party since the last leader to win an election. We know that he has reversed the absolutely dramatic deficit in popularity of the Labour Party that he inherited. We know he has pledged some things that were in the Corbyn manifesto. As I said to Roger earlier on, anybody who pretends they know much more than that is a liar or projecting their biases. 

 

I said in 2016 how it would turn out, and it's turned out exactly that way. Here's what I said in 2016 and I stand by it. 

 

On 25/06/2016 at 11:21, Guest Numero Veinticinco said:

No. He failed spectacularly and shouldn't remain. He is very unlikely to win an election, which means years of Boris Johnson.

 

His politics are closer to mine than most people but what's the point?

 

That was in June 2016. Johnson didn't get into power until 2019 and now has a huge mandate to do whatever the fuck he wants for the next few years. I said this whilst you spent - and continue to spend - time backing Corbyn as a leader of the Labour Party or as a fantasy of how the next Labour leader should be. That's fine, you can obviously support what you want, but whilst you might not take lectures from me about sensible posting, I'm not going to take lectures from you on what constitutes a potentially successful Labour leader. This is simply because you don't know your arsehole from your elbow in this regard and you've demonstrated it for years. 

 

I have no issue with people wanted Labour values, I have an issue with people making shit up and projecting it without any evidence. I want whatever gets rid of the Tories and have absolutely no time with those who want their perfect vision of a Labour Party whilst allowing millions of people to suffer. That's the bottom line. Now, about this thing that I'm supposed to be backing away from... what? Like I say, I stand by what I said. What I said then, what I said now, and unless there's some sensible reason for me to change my mind, you're just bleating into the wind as you have been doing for years now. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

I think it’s counter-productive to keep him around the party. As much as I love the man it’s just a distraction we could do with out especially when the tories are fucking things up. We need this Tory party gone and if that means Corbyn is sacrificed then so be it. 

They'll find another target. The Tories will continue to fuck the country up and then two weeks before the election Starmer will eat a sarnie in a funny way, or something, and that will be that.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 17/10/2020 at 22:53, AngryofTuebrook said:

Genuinely can't be arsed reading that.

Maybe stick to the meaningless one-word posts.

Maybe I should have clarified this.

 

At this point you were in full swing arguing against stuff that nobody was arguing for and throwing in shitty insults. Life's too short for that nonsense. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Erm, no. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

53 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Erm, no. 

You know this stuff is written down, don't you? It's still there, just a few pages back.

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

You know this stuff is written down, don't you? It's still there, just a few pages back.

No, tell me more about this concept. I wish I was as smart as you so I could have re-read what I said first before refuting it. 

 

Seriously, if you're going to continue to be a condescending cunt, can you at least make it interesting or original? Yes, I - a complete fucking moron, apparently - do realise that things on a forum are written down. I, which to somebody in a position to talk down to me should be obvious, disagree with your characterisation of what I've written. Still, you've managed to avoid everything else I said in my post, so objective achieved I guess. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 hours ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

You didn't, Angry. You didn't try to have a sensible conversation; you tried to use a school-yard tactic - again - of replying to a comment with an attempt at pivoting and reframing what had been said. The time I tried to engage sensibly you said you weren't going to read it. Not sure what the fuck you want from me, but if you're going to try to use such bland, transparent, junior-debate-club nonsense that insults my intelligence, then I'm just too fuckin' lazy to refute that sort of poorly thought-out nonsense. Seriously, the days when I write multiple thousand word essays as a response to a post, just so I can win a debate on the fucking internet, are long gone. It's just not worth it; I get nothing from it.

 

In this case, you start out with a clear double standard and you've now veered into 'you're an idiot' levels of debating. Seriously, you've been banging on in defence of Corbyn for years (you used to get pissed off when people called him scruffy, much less a bad leader) and you're pissed off that I've had a pop at his leadership and, I suspect more annoyingly, at his acolytes. It's fucking transparent. No matter what you've insinuated in your last few posts, I'm not an idiot; it's obvious you're on the defensive about it and it's colouring your view. The double standard of having previously lambasted Paul for having a pop at Corbyn, saying he was immature for expecting too much within 9 months of Corbyn's leadership, then here you are at Starmer's throat within a few months. I'd have to blind not to notice your real motivations.

 

The truth is that we don't know where Starmer will take the party yet. We know just a few facts: that he has, in his first few months, become the most popular leader of the Labour Party since the last leader to win an election. We know that he has reversed the absolutely dramatic deficit in popularity of the Labour Party that he inherited. We know he has pledged some things that were in the Corbyn manifesto. As I said to Roger earlier on, anybody who pretends they know much more than that is a liar or projecting their biases. 

 

I said in 2016 how it would turn out, and it's turned out exactly that way. Here's what I said in 2016 and I stand by it. 

 

 

That was in June 2016. Johnson didn't get into power until 2019 and now has a huge mandate to do whatever the fuck he wants for the next few years. I said this whilst you spent - and continue to spend - time backing Corbyn as a leader of the Labour Party or as a fantasy of how the next Labour leader should be. That's fine, you can obviously support what you want, but whilst you might not take lectures from me about sensible posting, I'm not going to take lectures from you on what constitutes a potentially successful Labour leader. This is simply because you don't know your arsehole from your elbow in this regard and you've demonstrated it for years. 

 

I have no issue with people wanted Labour values, I have an issue with people making shit up and projecting it without any evidence. I want whatever gets rid of the Tories and have absolutely no time with those who want their perfect vision of a Labour Party whilst allowing millions of people to suffer. That's the bottom line. Now, about this thing that I'm supposed to be backing away from... what? Like I say, I stand by what I said. What I said then, what I said now, and unless there's some sensible reason for me to change my mind, you're just bleating into the wind as you have been doing for years now. 

If your earlier lengthy post was anything like that, I was right to swerve it. You're having a massive rant against stuff I never said (or even thought).

 

Have a brew and a wank.

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

You're having a massive rant against stuff I never said (or even thought).

Yes, without telling me which parts it's quite difficult for me to refute it. Have you recently read a 'Debating for Dummies' book or that 'How to Be Right' book by JO'B or something? It's bizarre. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Yes, without telling me which parts it's quite difficult for me to refute it. Have you recently read a 'Debating for Dummies' book or that 'How to Be Right' book by JO'B or something? It's bizarre. 

You've started from the premise that you're arguing with someone who believes that Jeremy Corbyn is pure and perfect and that anyone who isn't Corbyn must be destroyed. 

Such people do exist.  I've seen them on Twitter.  If I wasn't banned, I'd tell them exactly what I think of them.

Just because I mentioned Corbyn's name, in a non-derogatory manner, you went off on one and started railing against me as though I were a fundamentalist devotee of the bearded idol. In real life, nothing I have posted would lead a sensible person to that conclusion. 

[Strontium]

Am I the only one who hasn't got a clue what you're both actually arguing about?

[lifetime fan]

22 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Am I the only one who hasn't got a clue what you're both actually arguing about?

No. Me neither. 
 

Two posters who both hate the tories arguing over nothing. 
 

Has there ever been a political party greater at fucking themselves over than Labour? 

[Mudface]

9 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

No. Me neither. 
 

Two posters who both hate the tories arguing over nothing. 
 

Has there ever been a political party greater at fucking themselves over than Labour? 

Hi!

 

[lifetime fan]

1 minute ago, Mudface said:

Hi!

 

They were pretty much irrelevant before the coalition and have been since. 
 

Even as a Labour supporter I have to say they fuck themselves over more than the tories do. 

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

 

Even as a Labour supporter I have to say they fuck themselves over more than the tories do. 

Thats bollocks mate. The tories just get away with it because they financially look after those who own the media. 

[Rico1304]

3 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

They were pretty much irrelevant before the coalition and have been since. 
 

Even as a Labour supporter I have to say they fuck themselves over more than the tories do. 

There were gleeful discussions about how the Tories would implode and Jeremy would be the hero.  

[Mudface]

5 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

They were pretty much irrelevant before the coalition and have been since. 
 

Even as a Labour supporter I have to say they fuck themselves over more than the tories do. 

Oh definitely, they do tend to pull together when they really need to. The Lib Dems lost nearly 50 seats and 2/3s of their vote share in 2015 though, which is pretty spectacular.

 

4 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Thats bollocks mate. The tories just get away with it because they financially look after those who own the media. 

He means in terms of internal party discipline. The SDP splitting in the '80s and this seemingly eternal schism between Blairites and 'old' Labour is a pain in the arse. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Am I the only one who hasn't got a clue what you're both actually arguing about?

Whatever it is, we need to pack it in. It's boring as fuck.

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Whatever it is, we need to pack it in. It's boring as fuck.

Im enjoying it.